The Audacity of Hope.....in Obama.

MT. Vigilante wrote: as far as I know

Key phrase in this statement. Just because you do not know, does not make it not-in-existance.

I like him. I agree with his political stances on things. I think he is willing to work with the other side, moreso than other democratic hopefuls. I think he is a hard worker with good ideas. I think he is very overall intelligent.





Here are some things he has done, according to Wikipedia.

"Obama helped to author an Illinois Earned Income Tax Credit that provided benefits to the working poor. He also worked for legislation that would cover residents who could not afford health insurance, and helped pass bills to increase funding for AIDS prevention and care programs.

Obama authored a law requiring police to videotape interrogations for crimes punishable by the death penalty. He also pushed through legislation that would force insurance companies to cover routine mammograms.

In his subsequent campaign for the U.S. Senate, Obama won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, whose officials cited his "longtime support of gun control measures and his willingness to negotiate compromises", this despite his support for some bills that the police union had opposed.

In April 2005, Obama sponsored his first Senate bill, the "Higher Education Opportunity through Pell Grant Expansion Act", S. 697. Entered in fulfillment of a campaign promise to help needy students pay their college tuitions, the bill proposed increasing the maximum amount of Pell Grant awards to $5,100. Provision for Pell Grant awards was later incorporated into the "Deficit Reduction Act", S. 1932, signed by President George W. Bush on February 8, 2006.


Obama co-sponsored the "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act", S. 1033, introduced by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on May 12, 2005. Obama also supported a later revision, the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act", S. 2611, passed by the Senate on May 25, 2006. He offered three amendments that were included in the bill passed by the Senate: (1) to protect American workers against unfair job competition from guest workers; (2) require employer verification of their employees' legal immigration status through improved verification systems; and (3) fund improvements in FBI background checks of immigrants applying for U.S. citizenship. In December 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives had passed a parallel bill, H.R. 4437, which provides for enhanced border security measures, but does not address the broader immigration reforms contained in the Senate's bill. As of November 2006, the House and Senate were unable to reconcile the two versions.

In November 2005, Obama and Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) introduced the "Cooperative Proliferation Detection, Interdiction Assistance, and Conventional Threat Reduction Act" to expand the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines. The bill, also known as "Lugar-Obama", was passed out of committee and reported to the Senate in May 2006.

Obama joined with Senators Coburn (R-OK), Carper (D-DE), and McCain (R-AZ) in sponsoring the "Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act", S. 2590, to provide citizens with a website, managed by the Office of Management and Budget, listing all organizations receiving Federal funds from 2007 onward, and providing breakdowns by the agency allocating the funds, the dollar amount given, and the purpose of the grant or contract. President George W. Bush signed the bill, also referred to as the "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act", into law on September 26, 2006.




So no, he has not just sat around. I support quite a few of his issues.

And if we are bringing into question his political background, I have to ask why? Our previous two presidents only held the title of Governer before their time as president.


Edited by Tae Kwon Do - 11 December 2006 at 4:03pm

I like him. If anything, you can at least admire his charisma.

Bolt3 wrote: What did George W. Bush ever do for the good of our country?

Defended this nation and continues to defend this nation in a time of war?

Hes got a cool name.

I hope McCain runs in '08.  He'll probably get my vote.

Tae Kwon Do wrote: Kristofer wrote: Defended this nation Hehe. Defending the sky of Texas you mean? You and Bush have something in common, both in the millitary during a time of war, never once seeing a battlefield.

  I hope after the overuse of the national gaurd in this war service in the reserves or gaurd won't be crapped on as hard in future political  battles. I think too many reservists and gaurdsmen have died in the last five years of war for that to be called for. But as long as you're going after someone with a different political stance I guess it's all for the greater good right?

Bolt3 wrote: What did George W. Bush ever do for the good of our country?

hmmm, how did i know that this thread would come to bush?

Back on track here,

I think the big push for Obama to run comes from those in the Democratic camp who have enough foresight to see that Hillary Clinton isn't a viable candidate for the next presidency. While the Bush Administration has slowly but surely been loosing the support of the majority, the Republican party on a whole hasn't done enough to completely alienate themselves from John Q. Public. While the House has shifted ballance, only 29 seats were lost by the Republican party even though all 435 seats were up for re-election. The Senate also suffered lost seats for the Republicans, again, the losses were minimal with the ballance of power being split right down the middle with 49 seats Democratic, 49 Republican, and 2 Independent. While a decisive victory for the Democratic party which hasn't held a majority in congress for over a decade, it doesn't signal a large-enough shift in political feelings within the voting public to put someone who is considered to be a far-left liberal into office. Barrack Obama is the next best bet. While he stands hard on certain liberal topics, he is willing to compromise in most situations to bring about an amicable solution for all parties involved. The fact that he is also an African American may play a large factor in the final decision at the primaries. The Democrats need a clear and decisive victory that can't be muddied and dragged into court like the past two elections. If they can garner a large turn-out from the African American and minority voters in addition to their normal turnout, then they'd have a distinct advantage in numbers. Sure, it's a cheap ploy running the race-card, but if it works, it works. The only issue that I can see Obama having in this race is that it will be tough for him to win some of the less-progressive states. West Virginia, for example, is a traditionally Democratic state, but it has gone republican the last two presidential elections and has played a rather decisive role in the outcome each time. Obama has the potential to loose that state himself if he doesn't make his agenda and presence known on a personal level in it and other swing-able southern states. He'll have a hard time in the "redneck" areas simply because he's black and his middle name is Barack Hussein Obama. Trust me, I'm from one of those redneck states, and I know people would be hard pressed to vote for someone who sounded middle-eastern anytime soon. They're petty, petty, reasons, but they'll still sway votes the other way none-the-less.

I wish Obama all the luck in the world, just as I wish whoever the Republican candidate is all the luck in the world as well. I think we'll have better decisions and harder-fought debates come 2008. Both sides MUST field a moderate candidate or they'll surely lose.

____________EDIT______________
Forgot to close the underline tag earlier... .oops!

Edited by tallen702 - 11 December 2006 at 6:30pm

Kristofer wrote: Bolt3 wrote: What did George W. Bush ever do for the good of our country? Defended this nation and continues to defend this nation in a time of war?

Anyway, I like Obama's personality, his politics, and I like the fact that he hasn't been tainted by Washington politics too much. He's about the closest thing to one of "us" being a presidential hopeful as we have right now.


Edit: Red, just because the Guard has been misused by this administration for the past 5 years, it should be out of bounds to point out that Mr. Bush is a chicken-hawk?


Edited by .Ryan - 11 December 2006 at 8:20pm

I fail to see how it makes a difference.

Really a poor analogy. A person can be president and not have to make major military decisions. He has advisers in that field for a reason.
If the farmer has advisers who will help him make decisions, sure, why not. There is a reason serving in the military is not a prerequisite to serving as president.

When you start judging a president on military ability, why not just make the highest general we have act as president as well?

The president's job is not to lead the military. It is to run the country first and foremost.


Edited by Tae Kwon Do - 11 December 2006 at 9:01pm